| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 25.04.03 09:09l 258 Lines 9217 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1211-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Apr 22, 5/6
Path: DB0FHN<DB0ZWI<DB0CHZ<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0AIS<DB0SIF<DB0MRW<OK0PKL<OK0PPL<
RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<VK7AX<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030424/1341Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:64485 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1211-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Predatory Packets
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:29:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 25
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Spider wrote:
>ITEMS seem to be very "not used" and maybe something to consider. In a
>situation that something is "official", others should not have the ability
>to change it...period.
Problem is that they are supposed to be handled identically to objects
and posits. So we could not take advantage of this "feature" in one
program because it wouldnt work on others.
bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: pocketAPRS and HandEra 330
From: Henk de Groot <henk.de.groot@hetnet.nl>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:43:25 +0200
X-Message-Number: 26
At 15:52 17-4-03 -0500, Mike Musick wrote:
>If I do not hear from any HandEra 330 users by Dayton Hamvention (5/18),
>the special HandEra 330 support in pocketAPRS will be removed. It was very
>costly in terms of program size, performance and function, and if there's
>nobody running it there's no sense in continuing to carry the burden.
You can also stop the support and just keep a copy of the current version
(19.4) for the HandEra 330 on you site for the users than need it...
That way those users still can run a very decent version of PocketAPRS
while the new version for all the others can have new features for which
was no room up to now (hint: WX...).
Kind regards,
Henk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[commercial content deleted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Predatory Packets
From: "Richard Amirault" <ramirault@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:46:55 -0400
X-Message-Number: 28
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
Subject: [aprssig] Re: Predatory Packets
(snip)
>Allowing for more and more unique lables for the SAME object is exactly
>the problem that the Navy learned was the worst part of the problem.
>Having 10 different objects on a map from 10 different reporting
>platforms with 10 different designations at 10 different times guarantees
>total confusion. Objects must be correlated and combined so thta only
>the most recent and accurate is displayed.
(snip)
Bob, the downside to this is that the "most recent" may not be the "most
accurate". In fact, I have posted an object in the past that someone else
took offense to. (ham radio fleamarket) They took control of it and
*removed* it!!
But in general I understand and support your position .. just wanted to
point out that it can be used in ways you didn't intend.
Richard Amirault N1JDU Boston,
MA, USA
www.erols.com/ramirault "Go Fly A Kite"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[commercial content deleted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MIC-E mode on kenwood d700
From: "Wes Johnston" <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:11:13 -0400
X-Message-Number: 31
I seem to recall reading several years ago that the d700 would not work as
mic-e (posit after you unkey) in 9600 bauds. A friend just got a d700 and
we were playing today on 146.52 and sure enough, mic-e mode worked on 1200
and 9600 bauds. Is my memory bad or did kenwood allow this 9600 mic-e on
later revisions? or is it the d7a which won't do 9600 mic-e?
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Predatory Packets
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:47:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 32
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Richard Amirault wrote:
>>Allowing for more and more unique lables for the SAME object is exactly
>>the problem that the Navy learned was the worst part of the problem.
>
>Bob, the downside to this is that the "most recent" may not be the "most
>accurate". In fact, I have posted an object in the past that someone else
>took offense to. (ham radio fleamarket) They took control of it and
>*removed* it!!
And that is a human and/or training problem. And the problem is you
cannot fire volunteers.. But any attempt at a forced technical fix only
introduces more levels of problems which can make some things better and
others worse. THough I do support the idea of a class of objects that
remain the property of the originator for such things as official single
source data.
Maybe the fix is to introduce a NEW symbol for Hurricanes and only the NWS
or NHC can post it. I think that is a clean fix. But it requires all
client software to add this new ICON and to write code to not allow it to
be changed except by the source. But can we get all authors to implement
such a thing and all users to upgrade?
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MIC-E mode on kenwood d700
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:50:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 33
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Wes Johnston wrote:
>we were playing today on 146.52 and sure enough, mic-e mode worked on 1200
>and 9600 bauds. Is my memory bad or did kenwood allow this 9600 mic-e on
>later revisions? or is it the d7a which won't do 9600 mic-e?
My recollection was that it was the initial D7. But the D700 and D7(G)
added 9600 baud. In the D7(g) where you can set the TXD to say 100ms,
the 9600 baud Mic-E burst is hardly noticible by anyone! But the D700 is
stuck with the 500 ms TXD which is awfully long when a Mic-E burst is
only 30...at 9600 baud.
Though I am open to other reports.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: TNC connector
From: "Joe Della Barba" <joe@dellabarba.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:45:30 -0400
X-Message-Number: 34
Thanks for the info!
I have a Kenwood TS440 and I use the 13 pin DIN to connect it to a Rascal
for PSK31 and maybe HF ARPS. To my annoyance, it seems the 2 meter Icom rigs
do not have this 6 pin connector. Neither does the Kenwood 261A nor the new
replacement for the FT2600.
BTW, anyone know what the dial frequency and sideband is for 30 meter APRS
with AGWPE?
Thanks,
Joe 73 de N3HGB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Predatory Packets
From: "Wes Johnston" <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:54:51 -0400
X-Message-Number: 35
There's an idea... seems like the NWS has a secret decoder ring to send the
county alert outlines too... why not a special symbol? (thinking aloud)
surely no one would copy the packet into a terminal program, modify it and
resend. Naaa... that wouldn't happen... <grin> seriously, though, that
would prob stop 99% of the problems.
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MIC-E mode on kenwood d700
From: "Wes Johnston" <wes@johnston.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:58:33 -0400
X-Message-Number: 36
This has got me thinking about adding MIC-e abilities to our local
repeater... 9600 baud is not bad at all on a voice channel. Now we need a
tiny track which does 9600 so that everyone can add packet to their TX. Can
a 9612 tnc gate RELAY in one direction? (ie 9600 to 1200?)
Wes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: A bad feeling...
From: "Steve Dimse" <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:46:55 +0000
X-Message-Number: 37
All of a sudden, I cannot access any of my domains, looking them up at the
Network Solutions name server returns a "domain does not exist" error.
Last night I changed them all over to point to the primary machine, and
something must have gone wrong. If NSI holds true to form, I can expect them
to take a week or more to fix this. Not feeling very happy right now.
In the meantime, if you are unable to access findU by name, you can do so with
the IP directly, e.g.:
66.78.35.146/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=k4hg-8
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A bad feeling...
From: "Guy Story, KC5GOI" <kc5goi@tapr.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:02:07 -0500
X-Message-Number: 38
An alternative for www2.findu.com is http://findu2.flyingpig.net. I have
verified that it is resolving.
73
Guy Story, KC5GOI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: MIC-E mode on kenwood d700
From: WA8LMF2@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:56:09 EDT
X-Message-Number: 39
In a message dated 4/22/2003 6:05:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wes@johnston.net writes:
> 9600 baud is not bad at all on a voice channel.
Except that the reliablility goes down about 90% compared to 1200 baud!
9600 is fine for fixed-station-to-fixed-station operation over strong
signal paths, but is disasterous for mobile signals plagued with multipath
flutter and fading.
To get the same likelyhood of a successful packet transmission, you will
need to use 8 times more power than at 1200 which would basically eliminate
the 5W-handheld-with-a-TinyTrak from the picture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
